Slanted propaganda – what is this doing on a neutrally informative website?

You say “But for Representative Barton, the fundamental right to pollute other people’s air and burn as much fossil fuel as possible is too pressing a concern to give up.”
and use “energy guzzling” etc emotional wording,
which is hardly neutrally and usefully informative, even if the facts were right, which they aren’t

Just to take 3 issues,
The supposed ENERGY savings are not there
(only c.2% grid electricity savings, see the DOE etc referenced data ),
and even if there were the supposed savings,
there are much more relevant and significant energy savings in Electricity
Generation and Grid Distribution as well as Consumption, as covered on the website.

Moreover – whatever the savings NO coal or other major plant could possibly be saved, for the reasons given on

As for wasting coal:
Hello? Light bulbs don’t burn coal and they don’t release CO2 gas
Acting on them is not like acting on gasolene -powered cars.

If there’s a problem – Deal with the problem.

Power plants can and will use other (and low emitting) energy sources anyway, emissions can be dealt with directly , and not all policies need take time:
For example if coal use is such a worry: Tax it – that reduces use quickly enough, without running round people’s homes telling them what they can or can’t use.



  1. 0 Votes

    I looked through Greenanswer’s about and terms of use & privacy policy pages and nothing in either of those states that Greenanswers is neutral. In fact, Greenanswers calls itself an “environmentally-minded community”. From that wording, I would guess that there’s a slant towards the environment.

    It’s great that you’re reading the articles and giving counter-arguments though and pointing out where facts flop a little. To quote Greenanswers once again “the quality of our content is dependent upon this community. All we ask is that you treat your fellow members with respect. There is no need to agree, in fact, disagreements will make the site great, but we do ask that you do so respectfully.”


    • 0 Votes

      Thanks – Good Answers, both this and by Elifitz!

      I thought the inference that Rep Barton somehow enjoyed destroying the planet was a bit much, though I obviously disagree on the issue itself too.

      I would add, incidentally – in my admittedly partial way! –
      that consumers as a whole will hardly save money,
      regardless of what the energy savings are.

      That is not just in having to pay more for the light bulbs as an initial cost
      (or being forced to pay for them, via taxpayer CFL programs)

      – but also because electricity companies are being taxpayer subsidised or allowed to raise Bill rates to compensate for any reduced electricity use, as already seen both federally and in California, Ohio etc, and before them in the UK and other European countries, as referenced on

  2. 0 Votes

    Additionally, this is a blog article that you’re responding to – blogs are more opinionated than news articles, not just on other sites, but on this one as well. In such a case, the use of any emotional language is fair game, just as it’s fair for you to disagree or object to it is. 

    • 0 Votes

      Good point, re blog opinion piece

      I would say about it being a blog could be clearer, and separated from other content:
      So that instead of “Question” box below,
      it says “Comment” =
      so it’s clear that its opinion related,
      rather than being a website resource as such.
      Thanks for considering.

Please signup or login to answer this question.

Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!